I would love something after TDKR showing Blake as Batman, but I don't really care for anything between BB and TDK or TDK and TDKR, but that's just me. I like what we have already of Nolan's trilogy to not want anything to clog up that.

I'd just like to see someone's take on Blake's Batman now, either a series, or just one graphic novel.

The GN's after Begins or TDK could be a cool thing for the fans, but i see what ur saying Anno. It's not really necessary even though it's cool. Simply because the stories would be filled with mainly....references to how this thing can link to the next movie properly, and how Dent met Rachel or first appearances by Maroni/Chechen. Or Batman throwing Zsasz in the slammer. A joker name drop here, a Scarecrow dealing there. I get it. It's more a "fill in the gaps" type of game rather than a meaningful story that has weight to it.

I 100% want to see a Graphic Novel happen with Blake though. The solo movie idea is not looking likely so why the hell not?? I heard months ago that a comic was being written so who knows.

Indeed. Any graphic novel regarding Nolan's trilogy won't be dealing with much except for Batman trying to find where Scarecrow is, or maybe a battle against him where Scarecrow flees, but that's really all the real action we'd ever see in a graphic novel for the trilogy inbetween the films, and if Batman indeed took off for eight years, a graphic novel between TDK and TDKR may only be about Catwoman as well(and I'd like to see a Catwoman spin-off/prequel on film), but something on Blake's first mission, or his first six months or so as the new Batman...it needs to be.

You are right about something being mentioned as such months ago...didn't someone talk about Blake's first mission as Batman or something along those lines? What was that about?

It doesn't have to be treated like a 'fill in the gaps' thing. It could be as simple as, hey, we have a cool Scarecrow story to tell and we'd like to set it in the Nolanverse, and here's a 10 month space in which it could fit without causing any problems.

It doesn't have to reference anything specific other than Scarecrow ultimately getting away. But Batman novels aren't always about getting the bad guy. There could be a deeper point to make.

Scarecrow is underplayed period, and I would adore seeing the iterations of him and Batman from Begins fleshed out a bit more. Make Batman's career feel more substantial too.

Imo, if Gotham Knight was better and actually fit like a sequel to BB and prequel to TDK, it would've been perfect with how they used Crane.

Gotham Knight just felt like a bunch of random stories that could've taken place in any Batverse, and even stepped out of the bounds of 'exaggerated realism' that Nolan's films go for a couple of times.

I actually didn't care for Scarecrow in it. The writing was weird generally throughout the whole production. It was just like some out of context fanfiction from anime artists, which is cool on it's own, but I wouldn't say it's appropriate canon sequel/prequel material.

The one thing I did love Gotham Knight for is the way it extends Bruce's training. We see him, in India I think, training himself to resist and control his sense of pain. There's a proper story and an interesting character surrounding it. Looove that. I give GK a lot of credit for it.

I greatly loved the idea of him using Killer Croc, though, which brought in Scarecrow but also using another villain in Batman's rogue gallery, and yes, that's why I said if GK was better as it indeed felt like it didn't really belong in Nolan's universe at all. It's a shame that this is WB's biggest mistake so far with their animated films.

Indeed. Any graphic novel regarding Nolan's trilogy won't be dealing with much except for Batman trying to find where Scarecrow is, or maybe a battle against him where Scarecrow flees, but that's really all the real action we'd ever see in a graphic novel for the trilogy inbetween the films, and if Batman indeed took off for eight years, a graphic novel between TDK and TDKR may only be about Catwoman as well(and I'd like to see a Catwoman spin-off/prequel on film), but something on Blake's first mission, or his first six months or so as the new Batman...it needs to be.

You are right about something being mentioned as such months ago...didn't someone talk about Blake's first mission as Batman or something along those lines? What was that about?

Focus on Blake actually finding away to train to become Batman, cause you cant just put on a Batsuit, in a high tech cave (under a childrens home) and start being batman.

__________________
"All superheroes are essentially criminals who capture other supercriminals in vigilante-style justice and engage in wanton destruction of public property during superpowered fights".

It would be very interesting to see him don the Batsuit and trying his first mission without having taken time out to train though. He gets his ass handed to him and realize he's not up for the job just yet and sets out to find a place to train.

I don't know how long the events of Begins go on, but between Begins and Dark Knight 6 months pass. Between Dark Knight and TDKR, 8 years pass, but it's mentioned that Wayne has only been reclusive for 3. The last "reported" sighting of Batman was 8 years prior, but I don't think they ever specify that sighting was Dark Knight's finale.

At any rate, considering how Batman operates in the shadows, it's perfectly legitimate to say that he had only been retired for three years as of TDKR. There just weren't any city-destroying master villains in between that time.

I don't know how long the events of Begins go on, but between Begins and Dark Knight 6 months pass. Between Dark Knight and TDKR, 8 years pass, but it's mentioned that Wayne has only been reclusive for 3. The last "reported" sighting of Batman was 8 years prior, but I don't think they ever specify that sighting was Dark Knight's finale.

At any rate, considering how Batman operates in the shadows, it's perfectly legitimate to say that he had only been retired for three years as of TDKR. There just weren't any city-destroying master villains in between that time.

So I'll throw out 6 years or so.

It's not really legitimate to say Batman was only gone for three years between TDK and TDKR because there are certain ideas heard in TDKR that suggest Batman was gone for way longer than three, it was only Bruce Wayne that became a recluse when he had to shut the energy project down. Besides, if Bruce only retired as Batman only three years before TDKR, then the audience would have literally no reasoning of what happened to his leg unless you think it took five years for his leg to slowly get that bad. I still don't believe Batman "quit" that very same night in TDK, but I do think he did end up "quitting" and retiring from the cape and cowl pretty close to that night.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shauner111

10 months pass between begins and tdk, there's proof. Even though some "official" books claim 3 years passed (but those have a ton of contradictions so 10 months it is).

I kind of think Bruce being active for such a short period of time over the decade since he first suited up is what makes some people all pissy about him retiring at the end of the trilogy. I don't think as many people who initially rejected Bruce not being Batman anymore or "quitting" as they like to put it, would feel the same if Batman had been active longer over the period of ten+ years.

It's not really legitimate to say Batman was only gone for three years between TDK and TDKR because there are certain ideas heard in TDKR that suggest Batman was gone for way longer than three, it was only Bruce Wayne that became a recluse when he had to shut the energy project down. Besides, if Bruce only retired as Batman only three years before TDKR, then the audience would have literally no reasoning of what happened to his leg unless you think it took five years for his leg to slowly get that bad. I still don't believe Batman "quit" that very same night in TDK, but I do think he did end up "quitting" and retiring from the cape and cowl pretty close to that night.

The Dent Act probably came in like a year after TDK (just speculating) so i can see Bats going out during that time but hanging it up as soon as the Act started.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Who says there's a three year difference between the two films?

The Dark KNight Manual. It's pretty cool, and i wanted to believe it as well but there are so many contradictions (dates, etc) just within the book itself. One day soon, ill read it again since i own it, and ill mark down all the dates for you guys just to see how many contradictions there are. A lot of them line up so well but then there's a curveball.

I kind of think Bruce being active for such a short period of time over the decade since he first suited up is what makes some people all pissy about him retiring at the end of the trilogy. I don't think as many people who initially rejected Bruce not being Batman anymore or "quitting" as they like to put it, would feel the same if Batman had been active longer over the period of ten+ years.

I get that feeling too, but I just don't understand why people would reject it so harshly since Nolan's Batman did MANY things in just two films, much more than what we usually see a hero accomplish in three. Nolan's Batman was never like a fairytale superhero we see in so many other CBMs, so that real world aspect of what even a year would do to a man in a suit fighting crime and what he could actually accomplish within a year when you only see someone doing that much in a matter of years in comics, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shauner111

The Dent Act probably came in like a year after TDK (just speculating) so i can see Bats going out during that time but hanging it up as soon as the Act started.

I'd say six months to a year is the best option, imo, when thinking of how long it took the Dent Act to be created and started and when Bruce retired as Batman.

Quote:

The Dark KNight Manual. It's pretty cool, and i wanted to believe it as well but there are so many contradictions (dates, etc) just within the book itself. One day soon, ill read it again since i own it, and ill mark down all the dates for you guys just to see how many contradictions there are. A lot of them line up so well but then there's a curveball.

I really don't care how long Bruce was Batman in this trilogy it's what he gets done. The 8 year gap is fine. It didnt matter if it was 50 years. This is a different take. There will be others. It's the themes in the comics not how or what exactly happens in the comics. Mixed with nolan's universe. Not saying that we have to like it but I do like it.

I dont want to see Robin's Batman. We don't need to see it. We are not supposed to see it. This is bruce's story. He helps close Bruce's journey that was the point of him. Bruce wayne is Batman on film.

Best guess -- Bruce was Batman for 5 or 6 years before retirement, and another six months or so between unretiring and "death".

Short version ...
- Bruce leaves Gotham at 21, returns to don the cowl in 2003 at 28yo ... has about 2-years between return/first night and LOS attack;
- League of Shadows attack on Gotham occurs in 2005 on his 30th birthday;
- three year off-screen war on crime;
- events of The Dark Knight occur in 2008, Bruce is 33;
- retirement in 2008 or 2009 after Dent's death;
- eight year gap;
- Events of The Dark Knight Rises, Bruce is 41.

Here's my guess on the longer timeline (which is mostly stolen from somebody else), and the reasoning (based on college, birthdates, death date of parents, age of Jimmy Gordon, and references to timelines) ...

1972 or 1973 – Bruce Wayne is born.

November 8, 1983 – Thomas and Martha Wayne are murdered. Bruce is 10-or-11 at the time. (According to the “casefile” on the Wayne murders from The Dark Knight Manual).

2008 – The events of The Dark Knight. Bruce is 33-years-old. (Date stamp on the Joker Bank picture says 2008)- Joker’s “A year ago …” line isn’t referencing the emergence of Batman, but the time when the mob lost control of the city after the chaos of Ras Al Ghul.- This explains why The Dark Knight Manual references Wayne using the original suit for 5-years … from 2003 to 2008.- During this time, the Joker rises -- committing random crimes (which is why the bank robbers at the beginning have already heard of him).- Jim Gordon’s son is about eight-years-old during the Harvey Dent kidnapping.

2008/2009 – Batman retires. It is unclear whether he completely retires right away, or whether the Harvey Dent incident is just “the last confirmed sighting”. I like the idea of "unconfirmed" sightings for a year or so after. If he retires right away, 2008. I like the idea of the actual retirement coming in 2009, though. Either way, eventually, he completely retires.

[eight year gap]

2016-2017 – the events of The Dark Knight Rises. Bruce is 41-years-old.

Bruce was Batman from 2003 to 2008/9, and again in 2016. This leaves off-screen gaps for Bruce-as-Batman during Batman Begins (since there are two-years between him first donning the cowl, and him taking down Ras); 3-years between Begins and TDK; and possibly another year between TDK and retirement.

That is why I and others have brought up a series of comics or a graphic novel of Robin John Blake being Batman, or at least his first six-twelve months.

but doing a comic or whatever else makes Robin's Batman story set in stone instead of using our own imaginations. Because that's what I think Nolan wants us to do. Plus it would'nt be by the Nolan bros. Also I dont want to see him training because another point is the training is nothing the will is everything. We are not supposed to know what the next Batman will do, who's to say he will ever be needed. I think another point of him in TDKR was ''IF'' something does happen he will be Gothams next protector. Nolan gets pissed on for ''over explaining'' things now people want Robin's Batman explained. His Batman is not ment to be explained if it was it would be in the film or novel or making of books etc when the movie was released.